My .02 but obviously I may lack some context.

On Gac reps: I don't believe this is about getting more rep for when the 
CG turns into a voting place, no. If reps have the jobs, as Sam I think 
says, of coordinating submissions and proposals, then of course reps 
have very real influence as political stimulator, if you will. The more 
reps, the more positions (on an ideological issues-area axis) can 
effectively be put forth.  The more positions clustered together means 
that when each are nurtured, presented, conceived and lobbied for then, 
because of their proximity and other condition, it will be more 
interesting for those cluster of position to effectively bargain around, 
make coalition outside, etc.

I don't think anyone would put a tool on the CG, and every rep there 
will have influence IMO, at the very least simply by being able to put 
in time and do some work. I do not think we gain anything by allowing 
it. Conceding 5 will not help gvnmts "get around" the idea that it's not 
gonna be an intergovernmental solution. With the line of communicating 
our opposition to the 5 reps that Milton has already put forth, I also 
do not think we are hurting ourselves by opposing.

On the "scope of the work of the transition" I agree with Sam's wording: 
it should be thought very widely as choosing and planning a new 
institutional arrangement. All possible institutional arrangements are 
possible candidates and the scope of the work of the transition should 
positively not preclude any conceivable such arrangements.

Nicolas


On 2014-07-12 11:45 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> The coordination group will meet in London next week for its first f2f meeting. We've also had an initial conference call.
>
> I want to solicit your opinion on two immediate issues we will face.
>
> 1. GAC representation.
> Governments have been allotted 2 seats on the coordination group (CG). They want 5, one for each world region.
> ICANN has indicated that it will follow the CG's lead on whether to add additional seats or keep it at two.
> I have an opinion on this, but want to see what others think.
> My opinion is that the GAC should not be allowed to add more members; the basic fallacy they are making is to see the CG as a voting body rather than seeing its members as liaisons to the specific communities represented. 2 seats allows them to keep tabs on what the CG is doing and carry that info back to the GAC and the GAC's reaction back to the CG. With 5 seats you are not only inflating the size of an already large committee but inflating the representation of a stakeholder group that, according to the NTIA mandate, is not supposed to play a controlling role in the outcome. Other perspectives welcome.
>
> 2. Transition scope and expectations about work in the communities.
> Our working agenda says: "It would be good to clarify the CG's understanding of the scope of the work of the transition, what the community processes need to produce, and where/how areas of overlap will be handled." Advice on how we want this scope issue to be handled is welcome. We obviously want to avoid making "scope" a code word for eliminating certain outcomes or end states that certain forces don't want to happen.
>
>
>
>